Debates of Oct. 29th, 1998

National Defence

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the safety of our aircraft and our crews as well as the safety of Canadians is our utmost concern.

We will not fly unsafe aircraft. Air crews will not be forced to fly the Labrador. We are sensitive to their concerns. If personnel are not comfortable with flying the Labrador helicopters, they will not be forced to do so.

We are developing plans to bring in substitute crews if necessary to conduct the missions of any search and rescue squadrons whose crews are anxious about flying the Labrador.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, they are going to put substitute crews in but you are not bringing in the new helicopters. You are not bringing in the helicopters that were offered to you from the United States.

[The Speaker]

The member must direct her question through the Speaker.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Colonel Mike Dorey, the current base commander at CFB Greenwood says “There is still the perception that everybody else is flying. There is a perceived pressure to get back flying”.

The defence minister said on Tuesday that Canada has other aircraft to do search and rescue. Why then is the minister willing to put lives at risk by returning the Labradors to active duty when the cause of that crash is not yet known?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, even if the cause of the crash is not known, there is no positive evidence to support a finding of any systematic failure in the Labrador fleet.

The responsibility to provide Canadians with effective search and rescue and the need for our air crews to maintain their skills is at a safe level.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Defence Policy Review magazine is reporting that Brigadier General Walter Holmes, the military's central area land forces commander, told a meeting last weekend that the army is running a budgetary shortfall of $170 million. It is impossible for the military to operate even on the budget it has been given.

My question for the defence minister is, how much of this shortfall is a result of excessive government cutbacks?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence, like all other government departments, has experienced significant budget reductions throughout this decade as a result of the government's commitment to fiscal restraint.

These reductions have had an impact on all budgets within the department, including that of land forces. This has meant that all elements of the Canadian forces and the department have faced significant funding pressures and have been required to reduce expenditures to match available funding.

As part of the overall resource planning process within the department, we aim to achieve a better balance between programs and resources.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem gets worse. Brigadier General Holmes also said that the overall national defence budgetary shortfall for the next fiscal year will amount to $1 billion.

In my way of thinking, the minister has a choice to make. He can commit the necessary resources for a combat capable defence force, or he can tear the heart out of the Canadian military even further with manpower cuts. Which is it going to be?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the comments from the member across the way. Everybody knows we tabled our report yesterday in the House of Commons. The—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the report tabled yesterday in the House, we made a lot of recommendations in order to improve the living conditions of our armed forces.

What I do not understand with the Reform Party is that, in their famous report, they wanted to cut $1 billion from the national defence budget and here they are today telling us to increase spending.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Constitution

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government's constitutional track record is assessed very differently depending on who makes the assessment: the Prime Minister or the Liberal leader in Quebec. One says that all of Quebec's demands have been met, while the other maintains that everything remains to be done.

Could the Prime Minister tell us what message his ministers will convey to Quebec voters when they go door to door: that all of Quebec's demands have been met or that everything remains to be done?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, in the past few years, the agent of change in Canada and Quebec has been the federal government.

Indeed, the federal government passed a resolution recognizing distinct society and gave back to Quebec the veto the PQ was responsible for losing. Finally, people in Quebec will have a real choice: the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois, which plan to hold yet another referendum that will surely kill investment and economic growth, or the Quebec Liberal Party, which stands for economic growth and job creation.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member believes his own words.

Federalist spokespersons in Quebec say that the Prime Minister must change or quit. Is it not disturbing to see that even his federalist allies in Quebec are prepared to let him down?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, those who have betrayed Quebeckers' confidence in recent years are clearly the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ, which would have Quebeckers believe that they have generated economic growth, when in fact all they have produced is more unemployment and fewer investments, precisely by doing what the leader of the Bloc Quebecois mentioned yesterday. They have been playing the referendum card. They are losing their energy. They are misleading Quebeckers and consequently hampering growth and job creation.

National Defence

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. The Reform Party has always advocated increased defence spending. Now, back to the question. What choice will the Minister of National Defence make? He can commit the necessary resources for a combat capable force to cover the shortfall of $1 billion, or he can tear the heart out further from the military by cutting back on manpower. What is it going to be?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, something is not right here. The Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon. member's boss said on February 25, 1998 that Reform's alternative budget plan calls for holding the line on government spending for three years while dedicating the entire budget surplus to lowering the debt and tax relief. Which is it going to be?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence should get his facts straight and maybe hire a new researcher. His man does not know what he is talking about. The parliamentary secretary is lying.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member for Calgary Northeast to withdraw those words.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw those words.

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member to put his question.